[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d780cf636f78688435fa943c2c1d9655c9c33365.camel@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:59:27 +0000
From: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
To: "fweimer@...hat.com" <fweimer@...hat.com>
CC: "bsingharora@...il.com" <bsingharora@...il.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Syromiatnikov, Eugene" <esyr@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
"Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nadav.amit@...il.com" <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"dethoma@...rosoft.com" <dethoma@...rosoft.com>,
"kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"hjl.tools@...il.com" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
"Yang, Weijiang" <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
"jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
"mike.kravetz@...cle.com" <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
"john.allen@....com" <john.allen@....com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"gorcunov@...il.com" <gorcunov@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/39] Documentation/x86: Add CET description
On Thu, 2022-10-13 at 14:28 -0700, Rick Edgecombe wrote:
> In the meantime we could have a new bit shstk_strict,
> that requests behavior like these patches implement, and kills the
> process on violation. Glibc/tools could add support for this strict
> bit
> and anyone that wants to more carefully compile with it could finally
> get shadow stack today. Then the implementation of the warn and
> continue mode could follow that, and glibc could map the original
> shstk
> bit to that kernel mode. So the old binaries would get there
> eventually, which is better than the continuing nothing they have
> today.
Hi,
Any thoughts on this proposal?
Thanks,
Rick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists